Not true – private infrastructure goes across state AND international borders
Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, 10/24/11, “The Downside of Federal Infrastructure Spending”, http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/downside-federal-infrastructure-spending; AB
Critique: We need the federal government for things like the Interstate Highway System because infrastructure crosses state lines. Response: Numerous people made this point regarding my op-ed, but I’m afraid they didn’t put their thinking caps on. Private energy pipelines cross state and international borders, and so do the huge systems of the private freight railroads, such as Union Pacific.
Federal and State funding can’t finance infrastructure – the private sector is critical to raising capital
Leonard Gilroy is the director of government reform and Harris Kenny is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based think tank, 5/17/12, “States and Cities Going Private With Infrastructure Investment”, http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/05/17/states_and_cities_going_private_with_infrastructure_investment_99671.html, AB
States and municipalities across the U.S. continue to grapple with the lingering effects of the Great Recession. City leaders continue to struggle with depressed revenues, and 30 states are expected to close budget deficits totaling $49 billion this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Further, many government bodies are struggling to maintain their credit ratings in an uncertain economy. As public debts grow, cities and states simultaneously face pressing needs to repair and modernize critical infrastructure assets that can't wait if citizens hope to keep goods and services moving in the economy. For example, many interstate highways, which are owned and maintained by states, are reaching the end of their useful lives and will cost tens of billions of dollars to reconstruct. Yet, projected federal and state fuel tax revenues will come nowhere close to covering the bills. When factoring in similarly large investment needs in water, aviation, schools and other public infrastructure facilities, it becomes abundantly clear that new infrastructure financing models and sources of capital will be the only viable option to support and sustain growth. Enter the private sector, where investors are demonstrating a willingness and capability to partner with governments to modernize and expand infrastructure, according to Reason Foundation's recent Annual Privatization Report 2011. The report finds that the amount of capital available in private infrastructure equity investment funds reached a new all-time high last year. And since 2006, the 30 largest global infrastructure investment funds have raised a total of $183.1 billion dedicated to financing infrastructure projects; the bulk coming from U.S., Australian and Canadian inventors. In fact, eight major privately financed transportation projects were under construction in the U.S. in 2011 totaling over $13 billion.
2NC A2 - Spending Links
Privatization of infrastructure would generate a budget surplus
Lord, ‘10
[Nick Lord, executive editor of Financial Media at Haymarket Media Group, Staff Writer at Euromoney former Editorial Director at Finance Asia, affiliated with the University of Oxford, 4/2010, Euromoney ]
Barend at the New York State Asset Maximization Commission concurs. "We don't want to monetize critical assets to close a short-term budget gap," she says. "We want to use P3s as a means of delivering vital state infrastructure on time, on or below budget, and with greater accountability for the performance of the asset."¶ But there is no getting away from the fact that the assets are there and people want to buy them. And the conditions have never been this propitious to support a whole new vibrant market. With hundreds of billions and potentially trillions of dollars at stake, this could be the biggest emerging market in the world. In years to come president Obama could be crowing about the persistent budget surpluses, surpluses provided by the successful monetization of one of the US's greatest resources, its infrastructure.
PPPs save money in the short and long term – reduces the need for the government to spend money
Stephen J. McBrady is a Government Contracts attorney in the Washington, DC office of Crowell & Moring LLP, March 2009, “Funding America’s Infrastructure Needs: Public Private Partnerships May Help Close Infrastructure Gap”, http://www.crowell.com/documents/funding-americas-infrastructure-needs_construction-briefings.pdf; AB
The purpose of PPPs is to more efficiently (and economically) deliver a needed project or service that would otherwise have been provided by the government through traditional public sector procurement. Because PPP projects are funded in part through private capital, they provide a means of delivering public services at lower “up front” cost to the government. Particularly in the case of costly infrastructure projects, sharing financing burdens with private entities can significantly reduce budget constraints. At the same time, private entities often benefit from generous performance incentives as a reward for their increased risk. The system differs from traditional notions of “privatization” or “outsourcing,” whereby a government entity actually transfers responsibility for, and title to, an asset to the private sector. 7 In a Public-Private Partnership, either the public entity or the private entity may own the underlying asset. In the case of a hospital, for instance, a private entity may finance and build the facility with the intent to operate it and “lease” it back to the local municipality. On the other hand, in the case of an airport, a city of municipality might “lease” the airport to a private entity to operate, for an annual fee, while retaining ultimate ownership of the asset.
2NC A2 - Spending Links
Share with your friends: |